6 ms·

As a South Korean, I'm not sure covid has much to do with acceptance of "big government." Unlike most of the West, many Asians have lived under real dictators

As a South Korean, I'm not sure covid has much to do with acceptance of "big government." Unlike most of the West, many Asians have lived under real dictators - some still do. We know what a dictatorship looks like, and we know how terrible your life can be when the government abandons its duty to protect people. To put it other way, "Your government shouldn't have enough power to fight an epidemic, because that's too much power" has never been an actual argument in Korea, and (I believe) most of Asia as well. We don't want a small, underpowered government. We want a properly supervised government that uses its power to protect people.

just-juan-post 6y ago
Yeah everyone talks about the technology and nobody talks about the Confucian foundation that many Asian countries are built on. For anyone who wants a summary the Confucius episode of Genius of the Ancient World on Netflix has a good overview.
rangibaby 6y ago
> "Your government shouldn't have enough power to fight an epidemic, because that's too much power" What’s enough power? A government-mandated lockdown is legally impossible in Japan but they have managed to keep COVID cases within a number that can be handled by their medical system.
- dismantlethesun 6y ago
  I feel that if you're an island like Japan, Singapore, or New Zealand, or effectively isolated like Korea (3 sea borders + 1 land border which is permanently closed, and land-mined) then maybe the amount of power your government has isn't the key factor in keeping your country safe from a pandemic. The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores', but the key difference is that Manhattan cannot close its borders to the rest of the 50 US States. When people ask for a strong government in the US, its' within that context. They want a government that could enforce quarantines between different states, locking people into one state or another till the virus burns itself out. That's the way it worked in China, but is legally impossible to do in the US. The US can have minor quarantines (an apartment, a city block, etc.) but we can't legally quarantine a whole city, much less states.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    The other issue with a lockdown like that is even if it were legally possible it would be a nightmare to administer. Centuries of free travel between states has made the borders very porous and mostly just a legal concept. There are so many minor road crossings between, say, New York and Pennsylvania that it would be impossible to secure.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores' Participating in an underground rave in Singapore would result in lashes.
  - rasz 6y ago
    >The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores' https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/nursing-homes-deaths-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/nursing-homes-de... 'A state directive sent thousands of Covid-19 patients into nursing homes' yep, no difference at all
Cookingboy 6y ago
I agree 100%. As an Asian American it is baffling how throughout years of propaganda, so many Americans firmly believe that personal freedom and democracy cannot co-exist with a competent and effective government that has all the tools and resources to do its job. I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places. It is totally possible to have a powerful government and have that government supervise. In the end there is a clear distinction between "big government" and "authoritarian dictatorship". If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with. In fact, similar to companies, it's very well possible to avoid a single dictator CEO even as your company grows large and end up with a large management hierarchy.
- jameslk 6y ago
  > I agree 100%. As an Asian American it is baffling how throughout years of propaganda, so many Americans firmly believe that personal freedom and democracy cannot co-exist with a competent and effective government that has all the tools and resources to do its job. Propaganda? What? > I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places. I'm pretty sure it comes from the enlightenment era and especially the American Revolutionary War. American colonists were never been big fans of the powerful churches and monarchs of Europe they were trying to escape. > If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with. Would you believe me if I told you this very thing was happening across the world in the 1930s and 1940s? And pretty close to home too? Maybe all it takes is enough people to forget history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship
  - yongjik 6y ago
    Yet American colonists hanged witches all the same, and slavery persisted for much longer than in European kingdoms those colonists had fled from. Seems like the correct lesson to draw is that the size or power of government doesn't necessarily tell you how much systematic misery and injustice you will find there.
solidsnack9000 6y ago
I think you are inferring too much from too short a period of history. Rhee's semi-monarchial military government ended only in 1960. East Asians have long operated a comparatively strong state apparatus, a system borrowed from the Qin that goes back about 2200 years, which many scholars will argue is the first truly bureaucratic state. This is one of the central components of a developed country, and certainly of big government, but is no protection against dictators. It certainly never was for China or Japan (or Korea under Japanese rule). Even the recent history of Korea puts your point about what happens when "...the government abandons its duty to protect people." in doubt, because Rhee was the government. What has tended to balance out the power of the state historically is (a) a sense of law as something independent of the government and binding on it and (b) mechanisms of accountability, like elections, that require large portions of the state apparatus to consider what they are doing in light of public approval.
- yongjik 6y ago
  I think we might be talking past each other, so let me elaborate a bit: That Rhee's dictatorship ended only in 1960 is precisely my point - he was soon followed by Park Chung-Hee (killed by his own aide on 1979), who was followed by Chun Doo-Hwan (stepped down on 1988). In other words, the memory of dictatorship is still fresh in many South Koreans alive now - unlike America's revolutionary war, this is too recent (and, not too mention, too inglorious) to be painted over by some kind of PG-13 foundational myth. So the suggestion that the size of the government has something to do with dictatorship would make many Koreans politely roll their eyes. Right or wrong, our world view is shaped by our experience - and my Korean experience says having a weak government has nothing to do with avoiding tyranny, and in fact is a pretty good predictor for an incoming shitstorm (be it a foreign aggression or a domestic coup). What we need is a reasonably strong government, led by the right people. (Well of course it's not foolproof - but then again, nothing is.)
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    How did the size of the government contribute to the problematic transitions you mention; or how did a strong government contribute to their solution? The idea that a strong government, led by the right people, is a concept that actually leads to a robust system of government would make many Americans politely roll their eyes. We had a long experience with such a system. After we extricated ourselves from it, we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems. I hope you'll excuse me for saying so, but there is something profoundly solipsistic and unreasonable about asking me to accept your Korean experience as a basis for a claim as broad as you are making. If that is really the end and the beginning of your chain of reasoning, I urge you to reconsider your approach: we can't, unfortunately, base our understanding of political development on our experience: it's a topic with a long history and a long, long cycle time. A comparative approach, and a willingness to consider like problems and like situations in other countries, nets greater understanding in this area.
nradov 6y ago
Throughout worldwide modern history we have seen that authoritarian governments are by far the greatest risk to human life. It's just too dangerous to allow governments a large amount of control over people's daily lives. I'd rather take my chances with the virus.
- jeis9s9s 6y ago
  I would have thought plagues were the greatest risk but I'm not some dipshit political ideologue.

just-juan-post 6y ago

Yeah everyone talks about the technology and nobody talks about the Confucian foundation that many Asian countries are built on. For anyone who wants a summary the Confucius episode of Genius of the Ancient World on Netflix has a good overview.

rangibaby 6y ago

> "Your government shouldn't have enough power to fight an epidemic, because that's too much power" What’s enough power? A government-mandated lockdown is legally impossible in Japan but they have managed to keep COVID cases within a number that can be handled by their medical system.

dismantlethesun 6y ago
I feel that if you're an island like Japan, Singapore, or New Zealand, or effectively isolated like Korea (3 sea borders + 1 land border which is permanently closed, and land-mined) then maybe the amount of power your government has isn't the key factor in keeping your country safe from a pandemic. The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores', but the key difference is that Manhattan cannot close its borders to the rest of the 50 US States. When people ask for a strong government in the US, its' within that context. They want a government that could enforce quarantines between different states, locking people into one state or another till the virus burns itself out. That's the way it worked in China, but is legally impossible to do in the US. The US can have minor quarantines (an apartment, a city block, etc.) but we can't legally quarantine a whole city, much less states.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  The other issue with a lockdown like that is even if it were legally possible it would be a nightmare to administer. Centuries of free travel between states has made the borders very porous and mostly just a legal concept. There are so many minor road crossings between, say, New York and Pennsylvania that it would be impossible to secure.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores' Participating in an underground rave in Singapore would result in lashes.
- rasz 6y ago
  >The procedures used in NYC aren't drastically different from Singapores' https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/nursing-homes-deaths-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/nyregion/nursing-homes-de... 'A state directive sent thousands of Covid-19 patients into nursing homes' yep, no difference at all

Cookingboy 6y ago

I agree 100%. As an Asian American it is baffling how throughout years of propaganda, so many Americans firmly believe that personal freedom and democracy cannot co-exist with a competent and effective government that has all the tools and resources to do its job. I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places. It is totally possible to have a powerful government and have that government supervise. In the end there is a clear distinction between "big government" and "authoritarian dictatorship". If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with. In fact, similar to companies, it's very well possible to avoid a single dictator CEO even as your company grows large and end up with a large management hierarchy.

jameslk 6y ago
> I agree 100%. As an Asian American it is baffling how throughout years of propaganda, so many Americans firmly believe that personal freedom and democracy cannot co-exist with a competent and effective government that has all the tools and resources to do its job. Propaganda? What? > I think it comes from shallow interpretation of sayings such as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". I mean it's a catchy saying, but in reality it's just a result of terrible system engineering (in this case the government system) in many places. I'm pretty sure it comes from the enlightenment era and especially the American Revolutionary War. American colonists were never been big fans of the powerful churches and monarchs of Europe they were trying to escape. > If your big government devolves into individual dictatorship it just mean the single executive position likely had too much power to begin with. Would you believe me if I told you this very thing was happening across the world in the 1930s and 1940s? And pretty close to home too? Maybe all it takes is enough people to forget history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_dictatorship
- yongjik 6y ago
  Yet American colonists hanged witches all the same, and slavery persisted for much longer than in European kingdoms those colonists had fled from. Seems like the correct lesson to draw is that the size or power of government doesn't necessarily tell you how much systematic misery and injustice you will find there.

solidsnack9000 6y ago

I think you are inferring too much from too short a period of history. Rhee's semi-monarchial military government ended only in 1960. East Asians have long operated a comparatively strong state apparatus, a system borrowed from the Qin that goes back about 2200 years, which many scholars will argue is the first truly bureaucratic state. This is one of the central components of a developed country, and certainly of big government, but is no protection against dictators. It certainly never was for China or Japan (or Korea under Japanese rule). Even the recent history of Korea puts your point about what happens when "...the government abandons its duty to protect people." in doubt, because Rhee was the government. What has tended to balance out the power of the state historically is (a) a sense of law as something independent of the government and binding on it and (b) mechanisms of accountability, like elections, that require large portions of the state apparatus to consider what they are doing in light of public approval.

yongjik 6y ago
I think we might be talking past each other, so let me elaborate a bit: That Rhee's dictatorship ended only in 1960 is precisely my point - he was soon followed by Park Chung-Hee (killed by his own aide on 1979), who was followed by Chun Doo-Hwan (stepped down on 1988). In other words, the memory of dictatorship is still fresh in many South Koreans alive now - unlike America's revolutionary war, this is too recent (and, not too mention, too inglorious) to be painted over by some kind of PG-13 foundational myth. So the suggestion that the size of the government has something to do with dictatorship would make many Koreans politely roll their eyes. Right or wrong, our world view is shaped by our experience - and my Korean experience says having a weak government has nothing to do with avoiding tyranny, and in fact is a pretty good predictor for an incoming shitstorm (be it a foreign aggression or a domestic coup). What we need is a reasonably strong government, led by the right people. (Well of course it's not foolproof - but then again, nothing is.)
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  How did the size of the government contribute to the problematic transitions you mention; or how did a strong government contribute to their solution? The idea that a strong government, led by the right people, is a concept that actually leads to a robust system of government would make many Americans politely roll their eyes. We had a long experience with such a system. After we extricated ourselves from it, we had a long experience extricating other countries from such systems. I hope you'll excuse me for saying so, but there is something profoundly solipsistic and unreasonable about asking me to accept your Korean experience as a basis for a claim as broad as you are making. If that is really the end and the beginning of your chain of reasoning, I urge you to reconsider your approach: we can't, unfortunately, base our understanding of political development on our experience: it's a topic with a long history and a long, long cycle time. A comparative approach, and a willingness to consider like problems and like situations in other countries, nets greater understanding in this area.

nradov 6y ago

Throughout worldwide modern history we have seen that authoritarian governments are by far the greatest risk to human life. It's just too dangerous to allow governments a large amount of control over people's daily lives. I'd rather take my chances with the virus.

jeis9s9s 6y ago
I would have thought plagues were the greatest risk but I'm not some dipshit political ideologue.